RAJENDRAKUMAR SHARANDAS SHARMA Vs. SHRIKRUSHNA BABANRAO GUHE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The matter is part heard. None was present for respondents/tenants yesterday. There is no appearance even today. The order sheets show that this Court issued Rule in the matter on 05.10.2007 and though respondent nos.l and 2 are served, they have chosen not to appear.

(2.) The challenge is to judgment and decree dated 05.10.2002 delivered by the Additional District Judge, Akola in Regular Civil Appeal no. 162/2002. It was filed by the predecessor of present respondents under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 35 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, challenging the judgment and decree dated 06.07.2002 passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Akot in Regular Civil Suit No. 140/2002. By that judgment and decree the Trial Court at Akola has allowed the suit filed by the present petitioner and passed a decree of eviction on account of bonafide need against the original tenant.

(3.) Shri. A. M. Ghare, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner has contended that the possession was sought because petitioner - landlord is residing in tenanted premises and needed the suit premises for his occupation. The petitioner is retired Sub Divisional Officer from Central Government Service and his wife was also serving as Teacher. The suit premises consists of a plot admeasuring 1750 sq. ft. and there is tin shed ad-measuring 16 x 12 feet upon it. The respondents are tenants in that tin shed. The petitioner/ plaintiff wanted to construct on the said plot for his own residence and this need is proved by him. The trial Court accordingly appreciated that need and passed a decree for eviction. The learned Appellate Court unnecessarily mixed the issue of bonafide need with need for immediate purpose of demolition and has set aside that decree with permission to the petitioner/plaintiff to construct on remaining portion of plot by leaving the tin shed as it is i.e. intact for tenant. He therefore, contends that the bonafide need for his occupation has not been denied by that Court.